Is there anything new in this study?

JAMA reports that decreased physical activity plays a critical role in the increase in childhood obesity in the July 16, 2008 issue, but doesn't really supply any evidence that activity and obesity are linked. Think back to your own childhood. Weren't you much more active at 10 than at 16 or 17? If they have data for the 1950s and 1960s, I'm betting it shows the same decrease, yet kids are fatter today.

I lived in two small towns--I walked (or ran) everywhere when I was a kid. I even rode my bicycle 5-10 miles to the next town to visit friends. I had a horse and went on trail rides--if I could catch him. I went to summer camp where we hiked. I earned extra money by detasseling corn (a gross, awful but very physical job). At 16 or 17, the automobile had taken over my life, and even though I could occasionally talk my mother into a ride to school, I had a driver's license for my social life.

At my class blog, I have a photo of a group of us on our bicycles ready to go on an overnight camp-out as Girl Scouts, then some photos of us four years later on a picnic to which we had driven. Which required more physical exertion--biking or stuffing our faces?

I'll let Sandy take this report apart line by line, she's good at that; for me and my peers, I'll just remind you that teens are pretty much the same today as we were in the 1950s. All this study does is document that 9 year olds are more active than 15 year olds in the U.S. They'll need to look for other causes for obesity, because teen girls have always had this pattern of activity. The conclusion is, of course, there is a need for a new government policy or program to address the problem. FEMA-tize the children.